Power and Organization in Medicine: Ayurveda and Biomedicine

“Ayurvedic medicine is all the rage in the west, but it's more than just a passing fad -- in India it dates back many thousands of years. Ancient wisdom it may be but does it stand the test of modern science?”
I am having trouble embedding this video into my blog, so I have included the link to youtube if you are unable to view this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2FQfZhO60c

This video explains the practice of Ayurvedic medicine and its applications. The video references that Ayurvedic medicine is not tribal or folk healing, as Western nations would perceive it to be, but that it is a system of medicine on its own. The video gives us insight on how big the business of Ayurvedic medicine is in India and how much people believe in it. It also takes the concept of power and organization in medicine and discusses how Indian authorities regard the system of Ayurvedic medicine. Patient recommendations alone would not be able to convince the medical world, it is the Indian authorities who have the power to make Ayurvedic treatment standardized, and subject it to trials in the same ways as conventional drugs are in biomedicine. Equally important is the videos portrayal of the interplay between Ayurvedic medicine and biomedicine.

I have studied alternative medicine in another anthropology class I have taken, in which we discussed the practice of Ayurvedic medicine. For this class we read a book that introduced the concept of power and organization in medicine. The author states that power in medicine and healing may be compared to other raw materials such as fire, earth, water, and air. They are transformed through domestication, controlled or organized, and exploited for profit, as they are converted into wealth, status, and political power or authority. The author reveals that the “primary resources” of medicine and healing, such as the skills of healers, medicines, and knowledge, have become “secondary resources” as they are researched, certified, institutionalized, commercialized, and constructed by society. To expand our understanding, let’s consider how power in medicine and healing has been controlled, organized, and transformed by society when dealing with Ayurveda.

In the article “Medical Mimesis: Healing Sign of a Cosmopolitan ‘Quack’”, Joan M. Langford discusses how Ayurvedic medicine began to mimic professional biomedicine. The author supports this claim with evidence on the contrast between the “traditional” practice of Ayurvedic medicine and the “new” practice of Ayurvedic medicine. The ancient practice of Ayurveda dealt with human ailments, which continue to affect humans today. Ayurveda, in contemporary times, is trying to adapt to the modernization of humans without losing its observation, intuition, and insight based on ancient philosophy. Current publications make an attempt to convey the relevance of the science of Ayurveda to the need of modern times; however, political and scientific controversies still remain regarding the recognition of Ayurveda in Western nations. Modern medicine is powered by the hegemonic position of biomedicine, which validates a drug or treatment based upon scientific evidence. Furthermore, Western nations appear to have power over determining a drug or treatment’s validation. This hegemony of biomedicine in medical knowledge and practice largely affects the authenticity of Ayurveda. Langford comments on how medical systems are continually modeled after biomedicine with her term of “quackery”, which is “a concept used by medical practitioners and others to discredit medical practices other than biomedicine. Some biomedical doctors consider all Ayurveda to be a kind of quackery, based on a bogus view of the body and dispensing treatment the biological effects of which are scientifically unproven” (25). The power of biomedicine on medical systems is also presented in the article “The Sacred in the Scientific: Ambiguous Practices of Science in Tibetan Medicine” by Vicanne Adams. The author asserts this point by stating, "This assumption in part structures Tibetan views about their own traditions of medicine, often resulting in efforts to make their medicine look and feel the same as what they take to be a uniform and universal ‘Western science’. Others strive to establish the ‘scientific’ natures of things excluded from Western science, in order to establish that their own traditions are equally ‘scientific’" (Adams, 544). Both articles portray this idea that Tibetan medicine and Ayurvedic medicine are based on scientific evidence and principles that may not be understood or validated by Western science or medical practice.

When placed in a different society, alternative medicine, such as Ayurveda, is subject to the hegemonic position of biomedicine, which the practice lacks its scientific justification. Although it remains as the same body of medical knowledge, its treatments and practices are used differently in Western societies and are adapted to fulfill personal needs and desires. As Ayurveda is introduced to a new society, it becomes associated with different discourses and relations of power and control. In addition, as Ayurveda becomes embedded into a different social fabric than that of its country of origin, it becomes perceived differently, and its ideas and practices are adjusted to the new social, political, and economic realms. Thus, Ayurveda loses its recognition of science and authenticity and is incorporated into different hegemonic relations and discourses of power and control.

To understand how or why a particular therapy or practice may be folk at one time or setting, popular in another, and highly professionalized in others, one needs to look at the aspects of rationality in medical tradition. In particular, the aspects of power and organization of medicine need to be addressed. By looking at organization in medicine, one can explore the prevailing patterns within a tradition. There is a need to associate the ideas and practices of medical traditions with the social context in which it was created and practiced. By viewing the social context of health and healing, sectors of health care that determine a practice as folk, professional, or popular, can be adopted to that medical tradition. Although these approaches identify the rationality of a medical tradition, they appear to overlook the economic, political, and ideological foundations that society constructs in health and healing. These influences help to determine which ideas, practices, and traditions will become dominant or marginalized. The roles of medical traditions, like biomedicine and Ayurveda, emerge with the understanding of the coexistence of multiple medical traditions, practices, and thoughts, within cultures and societies.


Works Cited:

Adams, Vicanne. 2001. “The Sacred in the Scientific: Ambiguous Practices of Science in Tibetan Medicine.” Cultural Anthropology 16(4): 542-575.

Janzen, John. Power and Organization in Medicine. 2002.

Langford, Joan M. 1999. “Medical Mimesis: Healing Sign of a Cosmopolitan ‘Quack’.” American Ethnologist 26(1): 24-46.